But we got way off topic... The guy wanted a good way to pull off a gay villain and he's been told how.
And I don't understand why it's such a hot-button... So you'd rather do your own sex over the other. big. deal.
For simplification sake, assume there are two groups.
Group 1) Wants to show anyone not like them are evil. Group 2) Doesn't want unfair representation of anyone.
Group 1 might interpret a gay villain as "all gays are evil". When all gays are portrayed as evil, Group 2 gets upset, and defends them.
Group 2 might portray a realistic villain, who happens to be . When is something that Group 1 is, they get upset with Group 1.
What most of us posters (Darkless_One, crazysamaritan, Waterbizkit, and Shiftkitty, for example) are trying to do, is make sure that the OP stays in a Group 2 type of portrayal for his game. I think we're also demonstrating how easy it is for people to get divided into an opposing view, even when they agree.
Our "off-topic" is relevant, in-as-much as it talks about how you should be careful about the portrayal. In a similar manner, you don't want to portray every female as submissive to the PCs. Or all the villains having the name of Bismark. Or Dark-skinned humans only as savages. The problem is, when you say something like "The X Villain", you always run the risk of making it seem like X is an evil trait. Even if you share that trait.
(for example, if I portrayed every german as evil, you could still draw "unfortunate implications", despite the fact that I am german)
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
it almost looked like the image was establishing a link between homosexuality and depravity, which offends people.
That's possible, but the problem you run into here is that, as a rule, Villains are EVIL. How many ways can you portray that before it becomes redundant?
You're not wrong; it's a point that needs to be brought up. I just don't think Depraved == gay is the appropriate conclusion that should be drawn, when before the group sees this, they're told this guy is the Villain. Villain == Evil. In this situation, Evil == Depraved.
However, I feel that as the OP tones the idea down, the link between depraved and gay should also decrease.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
Yes, and I know this. But the overemphasizing of the villain's sexuality might cause one to draw the incorrect conclusion that the reason for the villain's depravity IS his sexuality, which the OP indicated was not the case. Unless you're going for creep factor, a villain's sexuality should not be flaunted in the players' faces to try and get a reaction out of them.
Since the king is a dragonborn then dragonborn sexually reproduction should follow that of most reptiles in that the sex organs are very small and almost in a state of hirbantion till mating season. This is due to the animals not spending energy on them till they need them. Thus when mating season rolls around they become enlarged for the mating season. Also reptiles along with almost all birds, amphibs and fish have a cloaca which is a opening at the base of the tail where waste is excrated from the body. This is here the eggs are also laid and such
As for dragonborn you can assume they have a reptile reproduction system. Since they hatch from eggs and such.
However it you game and your the dm, But i wonder the reason for having such a overt introdution and all. and the reason for it.
dragonborn sexually reproduction should follow that of most reptiles
Except reptiles don't have mammaries.
I know, this is the second time I've brought it up, but that throws so much logic out the window!
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
The player in my group most likely to play dragonborn likely would make his character have a small bosom anyway. He prefers flat-chested girls. For some reason that's all he plays. Reptilian girls with flat chests.
Wow... people get WAAAY to worked up over this stuff. The guy just wanted a way to make the villain memorable, and people took that and made this a politicle bashfest... people get up in arms over the tiniest things...
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I need to inform you that you simply don't get it. It's okay, that you don't get it, and it shouldn't at all be expected that everybody get it (after all, if everybody did, we wouldn't have problems with this the way we do), but it'd be good for you to realize that you don't get it.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
Anyways, I've played an openly gay character, which wasn't a big deal as I've never imagined sexual orientation as terribly defining in any D&D setting. I sort of imagine it as it has always been with humanity throughout history (especially in polytheistic cultures, or even just non-judeo-christian ones): People are gay, and gay people will exist whether or not people accept that. Classically, people who practiced homosexuality were generally also the ones with an opportunity to do so. That stuff probably matters less to a peasant who just needs a wife who can carry a pig under each arm while eight months pregnant. Love or even attraction are probably not that big a deal compared to setting up a family for increased survivability.
On the other hand, just like the upper classes in, say, ancient Greece were primarily the ones we know to have practiced homosexuality because they had time on their hands, their base needs were satisfied so they could pursue their more personal wants and needs. Some poor farmer out on a muddy field was probably just as gay, but he had GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX! to do and certainly did not have time to write a book about his experiences.
So anyways, where is this getting? Look at D&D. It's a world of stories being told, and the stories always center on the impressive, memorable characters. PC's, villains, etc. Most of these characters generally fit into the "adventurer" rung of the societal ladder or higher. Adventurers have little to nothing tying them down, they're overall free to make their own choices. To pursue their own sexual orientations would be a natural thing for them. Most villains generally have enough power to pursue their evil plans, so one can assume they can also shag who they like, or love who they like if you're going for a more human approach.
As a player, I've encountered several npc's who may or may not have been gay. Some parodically so (But never mean-spirited or in my view particularly offensive. Sure, one npc was a classic gay stereotype, but that was just one of those "random people you meet in a bar" npc's, not one that drove the story. Mind you, this in a campaign setting where homosexuality would likely be seen as something very natural.) and some who were actually quite believable. The interesting thing, of course, would be that the more interesting and believable, the less certain or open the homosexuality would be. Not that it was hidden, but I find it very rare that sexual orientation actually matters in a roleplaying game. Some people may prefer to keep heavy sexual thematics in their campaign, and I respect that, but I rarely find it a very useful tool. As such it can certainly be there (such as my character being openly gay), but the more emphasis you put on it, the less interesting the character will become. My character (cleric of lathander converting to amaunator) was struggling with his own insecurities, the fact that he may be viewed as a heretic, his travelling companions, etcetera, and drew on his partner for support, and that relationship was also where he could let his emotions out when he usually kept them bottled up. The character could have been played the exact same way whether his partner was a male or a female. I (and my friend) made the choice of having gay characters (perhaps inspired by a less-than-impressing lesbian couple played by two other members of my gaming group, and wanting to show 'em it being done properly) and rolled with that.
As for all my memorable villains, I have never touched upon their sexuality unless I wished to have a set family structure for them, but that doesn't actually prove anything about them actually being straight. All of the major villains I've written myself I've left their sexuality alone because it doesn't really matter.
The idea that a straight person couldn't write/act a gay character, or a man couldn't write/act a female character. All you need to do to make a believable character in any medium is to be a person, and draw on that. It only actually fails when someone thinks "gay" instead of "person" as their first step.
TL;DR version: If you normally introduce your villains by having a member of the opposite sex perform oral sex on them, and that's what your group is used to, go for it! The scene will be memorable while still following a certain trend.
However, if most of your villains are actually not introduced via sex, and your gaming group might raise their eyebrows at such a thing, perhaps it would be unfair to this villain to just make him "that gay guy we killed". Do you want your players to remember him for kicking ass or taking names, or getting head in public?
PS. I actually kinda liked the idea of some sort of primitive tribe of dragonborn seeing a gay or transgendered character as something to be revered. That's not too unusual. HBT's have been considered natural shamans in many cultures, and if you wanna use viking cultures as an example, witchcraft was considered the realm of women, and men who worked magic were generally considered to be homosexuals and thus "closer" to being female.
Those are not politically correct opinions, of course, but they're more historically accurate and interesting than naturally assuming that any culture in D&D that most likely accepts dwarves, elves, dragonborn, tieflings and half-orcs is somehow still shocked at the idea that someone might not be heterosexual. My delicate sensibilities. That lad just kissed another lad on the cheek! I'd better go home to my inter-species halfbreed girlfriend and lie down for a bit!
Seriously half-elves cool but gays not? That'd be pretty insane.
